Neither is a lawyer, conversation between non lawyers in the presence of a lawyer are not privileged and conversations involving a crime are not privileged...these people are getting desperate, they're just making shit up....

Yeah, well, since I'm married to an american citizen, I won't make a sweeping generalization about Yanks (tempting though it may be).

Aw c'mon, Doug. Can we have just one sweeping generalization?

Isn't it funny how prejudicial terms for foreigners generally centre around what they eat? Thus the British are "Rostbif", the French are "Frogs", the Germans are "Krauts", the Italians "Spaghettis" and the Americans are "Fat".

_________________"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."

Or "cheese-eating surrender monkeys". Does it hold up for German? I don't think it holds up in Dutch, but then the only mock name for a nationality I'm aware of is "mof" which only became derogatory during WW2 but is much older, and means something like "grumpy".

Yeah, well, since I'm married to an american citizen, I won't make a sweeping generalization about Yanks (tempting though it may be).

You are correct JPD and I sincerely apologize if you found my statement offensive.I should have said Canucks LIKE Mij seem to get everything backwards.Knowing that you are nothing like Mij ( you have a brain that works ) , my comment was certainly not directed toward you and others like yourself.

Or "cheese-eating surrender monkeys". Does it hold up for German? I don't think it holds up in Dutch, but then the only mock name for a nationality I'm aware of is "mof" which only became derogatory during WW2 but is much older, and means something like "grumpy".

The Germans don't either - most of their prejudicial terms are a bit dull.

_________________"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."

Wait wait, I just recalled we have words "Fransoos" for a Frenchman that comes from the same root as François, and "Spanjool" from the same root as español for a Spanish person, which may also mean syphillis.

Leave it to typical Trump supporters to make racist/bigoted/predudicial remarks towards people who happen to be from/live outside of the USA. Us Americans have to deal with these pieces of trash every day. Is it even surpising that Trump was the only presidential candidate officially endorsed by the klu klux klan and David Duke? Not at all. Ignorance breeds fear, fear breeds hatred, hatred breeds conflict. That's all those stupid fuckers (like racist pedopedro1) got. Fuck 'em.

""There is some irony in the fact that I am leaving while a man who has bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault sits in the Oval Office and a man who has repeatedly preyed on young girls campaigns for the Senate with the full support of his party," Franken said in a speech on the Senate floor. " ~ Al Franken

...“If the majority isn’t willing to find out, then they’re not living up to their commitment to the American people to follow the facts wherever they lead,” Schiff said. “Effectively they’re saying, ‘We don’t want to know where the facts lead, so we’re not going to insist on answers.’ ”...

I should have said Canucks LIKE Mij seem to get everything backwards.Knowing that you are nothing like Mij ( you have a brain that works ) , my comment was certainly not directed toward you and others like yourself.

Believing in lies, endorsing a pedophile, supporting a racist and misogynistic leader, tweeting his hate every morning, blasting the liberty of the Press,being too stupid to realise how many terrorists attacks and deaths that Jerusalem affair will bring... that's what Pedro calls having a brain.

Pedro, your hate of Dems is so deep, it blinds you from all the rest.I guess you'd vote for Hitler if he was a Rep.You're really a fuckep up guy.Be alert. Trump will need guys like you desperately in the next months.And like a stupid follower, you'll be there to help.

The truth is that Trump don't care about you.Apart from his gang and himself, why should he cares about anyone else ?"Thank you for the Power, now get out will I sink this putt"

BTW, I'm a Québecois before being a Canuck.

_________________No doubt, we're doomed !Ignore list: DiscoBoy

Last edited by Mij on Thu Dec 07, 2017 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Or "cheese-eating surrender monkeys". Does it hold up for German? I don't think it holds up in Dutch, but then the only mock name for a nationality I'm aware of is "mof" which only became derogatory during WW2 but is much older, and means something like "grumpy".

The Germans don't either - most of their prejudicial terms are a bit dull.

Wow. The discussion here suddenly became unique, interesting and not at all like the moronic obviousness we are used to seeing on this thread. I, for one, appreciate it.

Caputh wrote:

Isn't it funny how prejudicial terms for foreigners generally centre around what they eat? Thus the British are "Rostbif", the French are "Frogs", the Germans are "Krauts", the Italians "Spaghettis" and the Americans are "Fat".

They're fattening us up for the kill. Literally.

Plook wrote:

These people are getting desperate, they're just making shit up....

When they get desperate we all must get desperate. Too bad it's come to this. "They've" been "making shit up" for your entire life, haven't they?

...after spending 18 months and $6.7 million taxpayer dollars 'investigating' the Trump Admin's supposed collusion with Russia, as well as 'investigating' Hillary's 33,000 deleted emails, this is what the FBI's got...

~ Mueller (his entire 'investigative' team is comprised of Democratic supports/donors & anti-Trump supporters, some of whom have been either fired or demoted because of making this fact too obvious, otherwise they wouldn't have been let go) charges Manafort for something UNRELATED to the Trump campaign and charges Flynn with lying to the FBI over something that's the equivalent of a NOTHING BURGER.~ Comey (who's wife is friends with the Clintons) did NOT interview Hillary (in which she lied her ass off) under oath during the email 'investigation', thus making it virtually impossible to charge her with purgery and THEN drafted an exoneration letter BEFORE the 'investigation' ended~ Comey finalized the Hillary email 'investigation' by concluding she was, 'extremely careless', instead of, 'grossly negligent' - which apparently represents the thin line between not being charged with a felony and being charged with one

Not that the above is fraudulent, obstructing justice or incredibly bias or anything.

Nice use of CAPS here. It really helped get your point across - republicans are good and democrats are bad. It's a point you've made countless times on this very thread over a number of years but never has it been so eloquently stated. The burger metaphor is quite apt and the "nothing", particularly when typed in caps, is NOTHING short of sensational. I think that now the whole world, or at least the 3 people who read your posts on this thread, can clearly understand that they need to vote republican if they want discoboy to live a better life.

I study liars, and I've never seen one like US President Donald TrumpBELLA DEPAULOLast updated 04:19, December 9 2017 WASHINGTON POSTNo-one lies quite like US President Donald Trump, writes Bella DePaulo.

OPINION: I spent the first two decades of my career as a social scientist studying liars and their lies. I thought I had developed a sense of what to expect from them. Then along came US President Donald Trump. His lies are both more frequent and more malicious than ordinary people's.

In research beginning in the mid-1990s, when I was a professor at the University of Virginia, my colleagues and I asked 77 college students and 70 people from the nearby community to keep diaries of all the lies they told every day for a week. They handed them in to us with no names attached. We calculated participants' rates of lying and categorised each lie as either self-serving (told to advantage the liar or protect the liar from embarrassment, blame or other undesired outcomes) or kind (told to advantage, flatter or protect someone else).

At The Washington Post, the Fact Checker feature has been tracking every false and misleading claim and flip-flop made by Trump this year. The inclusion of misleading statements and flip-flops is consistent with the definition of lying my colleagues and I gave to our participants: "A lie occurs any time you intentionally try to mislead someone." In the case of Trump's claims, though, it is possible to ascertain only whether they were false or misleading, and not what the president's intentions were.

I categorised the most recent 400 lies that The Washington Post had documented through mid-November in the same way my colleagues and I had categorised the lies of the participants in our study.

The college students in our research told an average of two lies a day, and the community members told one. (A more recent study of the lies 1000 US adults told in the previous 24 hours found that people told an average of 1.65 lies per day; the authors noted that 60 per cent of the participants said they told no lies at all, while the top 5 per cent of liars told nearly half of all the falsehoods in the study.) The most prolific liar among the students told an average of 6.6 lies a day. The biggest liar in the community sample told 4.3 lies in an average day.

In Trump's first 298 days in office, however, he made 1628 false or misleading claims or flip-flops, by The Washington Post's tally. That's about six per day, far higher than the average rate in our studies. And of course, reporters have access to only a subset of Trump's false statements - the ones he makes publicly - so unless he never stretches the truth in private, his actual rate of lying is almost certainly higher.

That rate has been accelerating. Starting in early October, The Washington Post's tracking showed that Trump told a remarkable nine lies a day, outpacing even the biggest liars in our research.

But the flood of deceit isn't the most surprising finding about Trump.

Both the college students and the community members in our study served their own interests with their lies more often than other people's interests. They told lies to try to advantage themselves in the workplace, the marketplace, their personal relationships and just about every other domain of everyday life. For example, a salesperson told a customer that the jeans she was trying on were not too tight, so she could make the sale. The participants also lied to protect themselves psychologically: One college student told a classmate that he wasn't worried about his grades, so the classmate wouldn't think he was stupid.

Less often, the participants lied in kind ways, to help other people get what they wanted, look or feel better, or to spare them from embarrassment or blame. For example, a son told his mother he didn't mind taking her shopping, and a woman took sides with a friend who was divorcing, even though she thought her friend was at fault, too.

About half the lies the participants told were self-serving (46 per cent for the college students, 57 per cent for the community members), compared with about a quarter that were kind (26 per cent for the students, 24 per cent for the community members). Other lies did not fit either category; they included, for instance, lies told to entertain or to keep conversations running smoothly.

One category of lies was so small that when we reported the results, we just tucked them into a footnote. Those were cruel lies, told to hurt or disparage others. For example, one person told a co-worker that the boss wanted to see him when he really didn't, "so he'd look like a fool". Just 0.8 per cent of the lies told by the college students and 2.4 per cent of the lies told by the community members were mean-spirited.

My colleagues and I found it easy to code each of our participants' lies into just one category. This was not the case for Trump. Close to a quarter of his false statements (24 per cent) served several purposes simultaneously.

Nearly two-thirds of Trump's lies (65 per cent) were self-serving. Examples included: "They're big tax cuts - the biggest cuts in the history of our country, actually" and, about the people who came to see him on a presidential visit to Vietnam last month: "They were really lined up in the streets by the tens of thousands."

Slightly less than 10 per cent of Trump's lies were kind ones, told to advantage, flatter or protect someone else. An example was his statement on Twitter that "it is a 'miracle' how fast the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police were able to find the demented shooter and stop him from even more killing!" In the broadest sense, it is possible to interpret every lie as ultimately self-serving, but I tried to stick to how statements appeared on the surface.

Trump told 6.6 times as many self-serving lies as kind ones. That's a much higher ratio than we found for our study participants, who told about double the number of self-centered lies compared with kind ones.

The most stunning way Trump's lies differed from our participants', though, was in their cruelty. An astonishing 50 per cent of Trump's lies were hurtful or disparaging. For example, he proclaimed that John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey, all career intelligence or law enforcement officials, were "political hacks". He said that "the Sloppy Michael Moore Show on Broadway was a TOTAL BOMB and was forced to close". He insisted that other "countries, they don't put their finest in the lottery system. They put people probably in many cases that they don't want." And he claimed that "Ralph Northam, who is running for Governor of Virginia, is fighting for the violent MS-13 killer gangs & sanctuary cities".

The Trump lies that could not be coded into just one category were typically told both to belittle others and enhance himself. For example: "Senator Bob Corker 'begged' me to endorse him for reelection in Tennessee. I said 'NO' and he dropped out (said he could not win without my endorsement)."

The sheer frequency of Trump's lies appears to be having an effect, and it may not be the one he is going for. A Politico/Morning Consult poll from late October showed that only 35 per cent of voters believed that Trump was honest, while 51 per cent said he was not honest. (The others said they didn't know or had no opinion.) Results of a Quinnipiac University poll from November were similar: Thirty-seven per cent of voters thought Trump was honest, compared with 58 per cent who thought he was not.

For fewer than 40 per cent of American voters to see the president as honest is truly remarkable. Most humans, most of the time, believe other people. That's our default setting. Usually, we need a reason to disbelieve.

Research on the detection of deception consistently documents this "truth bias". In the typical study, participants observe people making statements and are asked to indicate, each time, whether they think the person is lying or telling the truth. Measuring whether people believe others should be difficult to do accurately, because simply asking the question disrupts the tendency to assume that other people are telling the truth. It gives participants a reason to wonder. And yet, in our statistical summary of more than 200 studies, Charles F. Bond Jr and I found that participants still believed other people more often than they should have - 58 per cent of the time in studies in which only half of the statements were truthful. People are biased toward believing others, even in studies in which they are told explicitly that only half of the statements they will be judging are truths.

By telling so many lies, and so many that are mean-spirited, Trump is violating some of the most fundamental norms of human social interaction and human decency. Many of the rest of us, in turn, have abandoned a norm of our own - we no longer give Trump the benefit of the doubt that we usually give so readily.

* Bella DePaulo is a social scientist who has published extensively on the psychology of lying.

I study liars, and I've never seen one like US President Donald TrumpI study liars, and I've never seen one like US President Donald TrumpBELLA DEPAULOLast updated 04:19, December 9 2017ImageWASHINGTON POSTNo-one lies quite like US President Donald Trump, writes Bella DePaulo.Bella DePaulo is a social scientist who has published extensively on the psychology of lying.

I don't know, Ghost. It's like they want us to keep thinking about Donald Trump instead of thinking about what really matters. I didn't learn anything from Bella's article. I know more than Bella does. Don't you? We all study liars. Sociology and psychology are good if you're going into advertising. It's not news that politicians lie. I doubt it's a surprise to any amateur psychologist that our ability to lie will only advance and become more streamlined with time. Just like everything else. The next president will be an even better liar. And so on...

Despite Harvey and Irma's jobless claims holding the bulk of the LFP rate lower than it would be otherwise (IMO, it would be just over 63% without these disasters), there is great news, as more excellent job #s are reported below...

(CNSNews.com) - The economy added 228,000 jobs in November and the employment rate stayed at 4.1 percent -- a 17-year low.

The number of employed people increased 57,000 from October, reaching 153,918,000, which is below the record 154,345,000 set in September. (The number of employed people has set six records since Trump took office.)

The rest of the November jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics was little changed since October.

A record 95,420,000 people were counted as not in the labor force last month, up slightly from the 95,385,000 in October (also a record high). The labor force participation rate stayed flat at 62.7 percent; The highest it's been since Donald Trump took office is 63.1 percent.

In November, the nation’s civilian noninstitutionalized population, consisting of all people age 16 or older who were not in the military or an institution, reached 255,949,000. Of those, 160,529,000 participated in the labor force by either holding a job or actively seeking one.

The 160,529,000 who participated in the labor force equaled 62.7 percent of the 255,949,000 civilian noninstitutionalized population.

BLS noted that some of the year-to-year data is trending in the right direction:

-- The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers), at 4.8 million, was essentially unchanged in November but was down by 858,000 over the year. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find full-time jobs.

-- In November, 1.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down by 451,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.

-- Among the marginally attached, there were 469,000 discouraged workers in November, down 122,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them.

'Labor force participation really matters'

On Nov. 28, Jerome Powell, President Trump's nominee to head the Federal Reserve Board, was asked for his views on whether the country has reached maximum employment:

And I guess the thing I would say at the beginning is, it's kind of an imprecise thing. You can't look at one particular measure of what that is. So we look at a range of things. And I think, for example, 4.1 percent unemployment is at or around, or even below many estimates of the natural rate of unemployment. So that's one data point.

There are other dimensions, though: For example, labor force participation really matters, and particularly labor force participation by prime-age workers, particularly prime-age males. And that is -- that is the one measure, I think, that stands out now as suggesting that there may be more slack, more people that can come back to work.

A wide range of other indicators suggest that we're at or near or in the neighborhood of full employment. We really can't be more precise than that.Powell also mentioned wages, which do not indicate an "overheating economy or a particularly tight labor market."

2016 work experience snapshot

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on Tuesday that a total of 163.6 million persons worked at some point during 2016. The proportion of the civilian noninstitutional population age 16 and over who worked at some time during 2016 was 64.3 percent, little changed from 2015.

The number of persons who experienced some unemployment during 2016 declined by 1.4 million to 15.6 million.

Other highlights from the 2016 data:

--The proportion of workers who worked full time, year round in 2016 was 68.8 percent, up 0.8 percentage point from the prior year.

--About 2.6 million individuals looked for a job but did not work at all in 2016, down from 3.2 million in 2015.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum